Title :
link :
http://ift.tt/2onj0IO
Fri. Apr. 21, 2017
Trump and friends
In a column published by Teen Vogue titled, “How I Feel As a Native Woman When Trump Idolizes Andrew Jackson,” Adrienne Keene writes…
“For some reason, under a (Donald) Trump presidency, Andrew Jackson has been resurrected, and continues to be held up as someone to idolize. I can’t even tell you how awful that feels as a Native woman each time his legacy is manipulated and polished, and each time the atrocities he orchestrated are ignored and pushed aside.”
Jackson is idolized in American history for a number of reasons, not the least of which was his brilliant and totally unexpected successful defense of New Orleans against the British in the War of 1812.
Anyway, Ms. Keene went on to claim that in battles against the Creek and Seminole tribes in the early 1800’s, Jackson “and his men wiped out entire villages, physically slaughtering Native men, women, and children.”
However, the notion being put forward by historical revisionists such as Ms. Keene that the Indians – er, sorry, Native Americans – of Jackson’s day were nothing but genteel pacifists gathering berries by a stream and bothering no one isn’t exactly accurate.
I’m just now finishing up a new book given to me by a good friend and longtime subscriber, Steve Brown, titled “The War of 1812: Conflict and Deception.” And if we’re going to talk about “atrocities” during Jackson’s era, we need include discussion of the Fort Mims Massacre that brought Jackson into the picture in the first place…
“Spurred on by arms and a promise of five dollars a scalp from the British agent in Pensacola, bloodthirsty Creek Indians massed, attacked, and massacred an entire American community living in the protection of the newly constructed Fort Mims, just north of Mobile, Alabama.
“On August 30, at noon, within the presumably safe confines of Fort Mims, the drum had just called the soldiers to dinner, as the rest of the 553 settlers went about their activities on that hot summer day. ‘Some were playing cards; the girls and young men were dancing, while a hundred thoughtless and happy children sported from door to door, and from tent to tent.’
“That drum call for dinner also signaled one thousand painted and liberally armed Creek warriors to rise up from their hiding place in a defile of a ravine just four hundred yards from the open gate at Fort Mims. They raced across the open ground, led by their black-faced prophets, and poured through the gate, avoiding a panicked attempt by a soldier to close it.
“Their attack and accompanying butchery lasted five hours. Every house was set aflame, and the terrified men, women and children in a final fortified house were now exposed to the weapons of the attackers.
“’The bastion was broken down, the helpless inmates were butchered in the quickest manner, and blood and brains bespattered the whole earth. The children were seized by the legs and killed by beating their heads against the stockading. The women were scalped, and those who were pregnant were opened, while they were alive, and the embryo infants let out of the womb.’
“Only a few people escaped alive to tell the story, but all who did describe the same scene of horror.”
It was Andrew Jackson who was sent to defend and protect American settlers. He ultimately defeated the Creek barbarians at the now-infamous Hickory Ground camp/compound in 1814. His battles during the Indian wars, and the horrors of the Fort Mims Massacre, surely influenced the future president’s perception of Ms. Keene’s ancestors, and not exactly in a favorable light.
The bottom line: There are two sides to every story. And the revisionist side should not automatically be taken at face value. In this case, “atrocities” were committed by both sides. For intellectually honest historical analysis, context must always be considered.
And that concludes today's American History lesson.
Cheers.
Dr. Chuck Muth, PsD
Professor of Psephology (homeschooled)
Nevada’s #1 Irritator of Liberals and RINOs
A Shocking Development In The Trump-Russia Scandal Just Changed Everything
For almost a year, the media and the Democrats have tried to take down Donald Trump by claiming he’s tied to Russia.
Yet no evidence has emerged.
Now one report reveals shocking ties to Russia that just upended the whole story.
It turns out it was Hillary Clinton’s campaign that was financially linked to the Russians.
The Podesta Group is led by Tony Podesta, the brother of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
They registered as a foreign agent for their work on behalf of a pro-Putin group in Ukraine.
It was the Podesta group that was lobbying for sanctions to be lifted stemming from Russia’s invasion of Crimea.
The Daily Caller reports:
“A LOBBYING FIRM CLOSELY ALLIED WITH HILLARY CLINTON HAS REGISTERED AS A FOREIGN AGENT FOR A UKRAINIAN ORGANIZATION WITH TIES TO RUSSIA’S PRESIDENT, VLADIMIR PUTIN.
PAUL MANAFORT, THE FORMER CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN FOR DONALD TRUMP’S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, ALSO PLANS TO REGISTER WITH THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FOR WORK HE DID FOR THE SAME GROUP, THE EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR A MODERN UKRAINE.
A SPOKESMAN FOR MANAFORT MADE THE ANNOUNCEMENT JUST AFTER THE ASSOCIATED PRESS REPORTED THAT THE PODESTA GROUP HAS REGISTERED WITH THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT UNDER THE FOREIGN AGENTS REGISTRATION ACT (FARA) FOR WORK DONE FOR THE EUROPEAN CENTRE BETWEEN 2012 AND 2014.
THE PODESTA GROUP, WHICH RECEIVED $1.2 MILLION FOR THE WORK, IS OPERATED BY TONY PODESTA, A MAJOR DEMOCRATIC DONOR AND THE BROTHER OF CLINTON CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN JOHN PODESTA.”
This is not the Clinton’s or the Podesta’s only shady ties to Russia.
While she was Secretary of State, Clinton headed one of nine federal agencies that could have recommended President Obama to stop a deal where an energy company connected to the Russian government purchased 20 percent of North America’s uranium stock.
The Clinton Foundation failed to disclose a contribution from the company’s CEO and it led many to wonder why they were hiding the money.
In addition, campaign chairman John Podesta was financially linked to the Russian government.
The Daily Caller reported he was the possible target of a Russian influence campaign:
“THE ADVISOR’S CLOSE ASSOCIATIONS WITH RUSSIAN BUSINESS LEADERS STARTED IN 2011, WHEN AGREED TO JOIN THE BOARDS OF THREE INTERTWINED COMPANIES: BOSTON-BASED JOULE UNLIMITED, ROTTERDAM-BASED JOULE GLOBAL HOLDINGS AND JOULE GLOBAL STICHTING, THE COMPANY’S CONTROLLING INTEREST. STICHTING WAS BASED IN THE HAGUE.
THE NONPROFIT GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY INSTITUTE (GAI) FIRST EXPOSED PODESTA’S RUSSIAN LINKS AT JOULE IN A HIGHLY-DETAILED REPORT RELEASED IN 2016.
PODESTA LEFT JOULE LEADERSHIP IN JANUARY, 2014, THE SAME MONTH HE JOINED THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.
HIS TIME ON THE JOULE BOARD COINCIDED WITH CLINTON’S STATE DEPARTMENT TENURE WHEN SHE WAS PURSUING THE “RUSSIAN RESET” POLICY WITH MOSCOW…
… LATER, ARAM GRIGORIAN JOINED VARDANIAN ON THE JOULE BOARDS. HE WAS TROIKA’S MANAGING DIRECTOR WHO ENGINEERED AN HISTORIC MERGER OF HIS BANK WITH SBERBANK, THE COUNTRY’S LARGEST BANK. GRIGORIAN CURRENTLY SERVES AS JOULE’S VICE CHAIRMAN.
SHORTLY AFTER PODESTA JOINED JOULE, ANOTHER TOP RUSSIAN APPEARED: ANATOLY CHUBAIS, CEO OF A STATE-OWNED COMPANY CALLED RUSNANO. THE COMPANY WAS ESTABLISHED BY PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN. CHUBAIS ALSO BROUGHT WITH HIM ONE BILLION RUBLES [WORTH AN ESTIMATED $35 MILLION] AS INVESTMENT CAPITAL TO JOULE.”
There is zero evidence connecting the Trump campaign to Russia.
The media is inventing a fake news story that the Russians colluded with the Trump campaign on email hacking while ignoring the documented financial dealings between the Clintons, their associates, and the Russian government that could have swung American foreign policy.
Fake News! Patriots Twitter Account Busts NYT for Out of Context Pics Showing Patriots Obama Visit Better Attended than Trump
When you receiving a devastating fact-check by the Twitter account of an NFL football team, it might be time to delete your newspaper.
That very thing occurred on Wednesday, when the New York Times tweeted out two photos comparing the number of Patriots coaches and players who attended in 2015, when Obama was president, versus how many attended on Wednesday with President Trump:
Patriots' turnout for President Obama in 2015 vs. Patriots' turnout for President Trump today: http://nyti.ms/2o4Kwj7
4:25 PM - 19 Apr 2017
Clearly, the tweet makes the Obama White House visit look significantly better attended than the Trump visit. However, the Patriots quickly pounced on the Times’ attempt at partisan photography:
These photos lack context. Facts: In 2015, over 40 football staff were on the stairs. In 2017, they were seated on the South Lawn. https://twitter.com/NYTSports/status/854793140125020160 …
Breaking: 2 More Aircraft Carriers Join US Expedition to NK
BY BEN MARQUIS
Everyone has been talking for the past week about the aircraft carrier strike group President Donald Trump dispatched toward the Korean peninsula as a warning to North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, but Kim seems not to have gotten the message thus far, considering his grand military parade and continued provocative missile launches.
But according to a report from South Korean media outlet Yonhap, there are rumors circulating that Trump just upped the ante by ordering two more carrier strike groups deployed to the tense region, placing a tremendous amount of air and naval firepower at the disposal of the military’s regional commander.
A roughly translated version of the article, which cites South Korean government officials who claimed knowledge of the deployment orders, stated that in addition to the USS Carl Vinson, already steaming toward Korea from Singapore, the carrier strike groups of the USS Ronald Reagan and USS Nimitz were also ordered to head for the region.
That shouldn’t be too difficult for the Reagan strike group, whose home port is in Japan, but it may take a bit more time for the Nimitz group, as it is reportedly wrapping up final pre-deployment assessments off the coast of Oregon, according to the Nimitz News, the carrier’s in-house media outlet.
To be sure, there is little in the way of confirmation of these reports from the American media, and the Trump administration has made it clear repeatedly that it isn’t going to discuss strategy or asset movements ahead of time, lest it give the enemy a premature heads-up regarding impending operations.
That said, if the rumors of additional carrier strike group deployments to the Korean peninsula are indeed true, the size of the “big stick” Trump is showing Kim Jong Un to deter him from his would-be nuclear ambitions just got a lot bigger and vastly more lethal.
It is worth noting that aside from regular training operations, this is believed to be the first time this many carrier strike groups have been deployed to the same area since World War II, should the deployments in fact take place — a significant policy shift in light of the previous administration’s non-deployment of similar assets over the same time-frame.
But according to a report from South Korean media outlet Yonhap, there are rumors circulating that Trump just upped the ante by ordering two more carrier strike groups deployed to the tense region, placing a tremendous amount of air and naval firepower at the disposal of the military’s regional commander.
A roughly translated version of the article, which cites South Korean government officials who claimed knowledge of the deployment orders, stated that in addition to the USS Carl Vinson, already steaming toward Korea from Singapore, the carrier strike groups of the USS Ronald Reagan and USS Nimitz were also ordered to head for the region.
That shouldn’t be too difficult for the Reagan strike group, whose home port is in Japan, but it may take a bit more time for the Nimitz group, as it is reportedly wrapping up final pre-deployment assessments off the coast of Oregon, according to the Nimitz News, the carrier’s in-house media outlet.
To be sure, there is little in the way of confirmation of these reports from the American media, and the Trump administration has made it clear repeatedly that it isn’t going to discuss strategy or asset movements ahead of time, lest it give the enemy a premature heads-up regarding impending operations.
That said, if the rumors of additional carrier strike group deployments to the Korean peninsula are indeed true, the size of the “big stick” Trump is showing Kim Jong Un to deter him from his would-be nuclear ambitions just got a lot bigger and vastly more lethal.
It is worth noting that aside from regular training operations, this is believed to be the first time this many carrier strike groups have been deployed to the same area since World War II, should the deployments in fact take place — a significant policy shift in light of the previous administration’s non-deployment of similar assets over the same time-frame.
Venezuela seizes General Motors plant as property of the state
This news broke overnight and it undoubtedly comes as a shock to anyone who hasn’t been paying to socialism in general and the regime of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in particular. The government of Venezuela came in and seized control of the General Motors plant in the city of Valencia, taking over the property, assets and accounts. The automotive giant responded by saying that they were immediately halting operations. (CNN)
General Motors says it will immediately halt operations in Venezuela after its plant in the country was unexpectedly seized by authorities.
GM described the takeover as an “illegal judicial seizure of its assets.”
The automaker said the seizure showed a “total disregard” of its legal rights. It said that authorities had removed assets including cars from company facilities.
“[GM] strongly rejects the arbitrary measures taken by the authorities and will vigorously take all legal actions, within and outside of Venezuela, to defend its rights,” it said in a statement.
GM’s Venezuelan operation was already pretty much at the point of stagnation. Productivity was approaching zero because their currency had collapsed and they couldn’t order parts to keep the lines running. Also, the domestic market for cars wasn’t exactly booming because their potential customers have money which is basically worthless and they’re mostly too busy looking for scraps of food to worry about a new set of wheels.
If nothing else, this incident will provide an enlightening, educational moment for the rest of the world. It’s a given that this is bad news for General Motors, for the workers there… let’s just say it. This is bad news for everyone except Maduro and his cronies. But it also serves to further pull away the mask, allowing the rest of the world to see what’s actually going on. So gather around, kids, because we’re not only seeing how socialism ends (and it always ends this way) but also how the socialist machinery operates through the various phases of its life cycle.
Originally, the government tolerates the presence of foreign manufacturing entities such as General Motors to fill needs they have which can’t be handled domestically. (GM has been there for roughly seven decades.) It’s not that the Venezuelan people are incapable of innovation or creation… there’s simply no motivation for them to strive for success. Anything they create simply becomes the property of the state anyway, so the hard working, innovative person doesn’t realize much more success than the guy who can barely keep his eyes open to show up for his job sweeping the sidewalk. There’s no point to being particularly innovative.
So companies such as GM are allowed to go to work. But once the system inevitably begins to implode, the tyrant in charge begins looking for new resources to grab. In the name of the socialist concept wherein everything “belongs to the people” he seizes the GM plant. They take the cars which are there to hand out to high ranking party officials and divide up the assets while demanding that the workers get back to producing automobiles. This is, of course, impossible because they don’t have the parts to do it and the people who actually know how to run things are fleeing.
These are the fruits of socialism. It’s a humanitarian disaster to be sure, but it’s also a teachable moment. Watch and learn.
The Number of Nukes North Korea Has is Scarier Than You Think
by Kerry Lear
North Korea building nukes much faster than anticipated
It’s no secret that North Korea has been ramping up its nuclear weapon program. The country's nuclear arsenal has been expanded to 30 warheads so far.
So how has the country been able to do this?
Well, first the country has been increasing production on weapon-grade uranium and plutonium. So much so, that North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un will have enough resources to double the country’s current arsenal to 60 warheads, according to the the Institute for Science and International Security.
So how has the country been able to do this?
Well, first the country has been increasing production on weapon-grade uranium and plutonium. So much so, that North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un will have enough resources to double the country’s current arsenal to 60 warheads, according to the the Institute for Science and International Security.
“The bottom line is that North Korea has an improving nuclear weapons arsenal,” said David Albright, founder and director of the Institute for Science and International Security. “The last several years have witnessed a dramatic and overt buildup in North Korea’s nuclear weapons capabilities.”
He also said that North Korea could “theoretically use a satellite launcher” to hit the U.S. but “not with any reliability.”
“It is uncertain, and there are reasons to doubt, that North Korea can yet build reliable, survivable warheads for ICBMs,” said Albright in a briefing paper.
However, South Korea and Japan are in the radar of the shorter-range Nodong missile.
Another reason why North Korea has been able to build up its nuclear weapon arsenal is that there haven’t been any consequences.
The country has hidden its nuclear work and hasn’t allowed international inspections in the recent years, so the U.S. has been relying on intelligence agencies to spy on the country and its nuclear activities. From gathered evidence, it appears that the country has constructed a secondary plant to build warheads.
“Continued underground testing will provide North Korea opportunities to significantly improve its weapons in terms of less fissile material (particularly plutonium) per weapon, increased warhead miniaturisation, and greater explosive yields,” said Albright.
DefCon, the U.S. nuclear warning system upgraded the threat from North Korea to level four this week after speculations that the country will be doing a nuclear missile test Saturday.
Luckily, as both Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has said the Obama era of “strategic patience” is over with North Korea.
“The rhetoric was heightened and a U.S. aircraft carrier strike group was positioned in the region after the Stalinist North threatened to test an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the continental U.S.,” writes The Washington Times.
"The officials are hopeful China and Russia would agree to tighter U.N. sanctions on North Korea if it conducts another nuclear test. They pointed to a recent editorial in a state-run Chinese newspaper advocating tighter restrictions on selling oil to North Korea," writes Chicago Tribune. "Beijing's decision earlier this year to cut off coal imports from North Korea also are being seen as a hopeful sign. Coal sales are an important source of revenue for Kim Jong Un's government, and the U.S. says China has turned back some shipments in recent days. Russia and China are critical to any pressure campaign on North Korea because they both hold veto power on the U.N. Security Council."
Although, it looks like China is an valuable alley regarding this issue. President Donald Trump has repeatedly made it clear that the U.S. is going to punish North Korea, with or without China's help.
Author's note: The number of warheads North Korea allegedly has is alarming. It was estimated that the country would have 10 by 2020, but it's already tripled that number. Evidently, the former Obama administration did not take the country's nuclear activities seriously enough. I just hope it doesn't backfire and the new administration can clean up this mess.
Donald Trump, Steve Bannon Among Time’s Top 100 Most Influential
TIME Magazine has named President Donald Trump, his chief of staff Reince Priebus,and his chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon to their 100 Most Influential People list.
Speaker Paul Ryan wrote an essay on Trump for the magazine, praising the president for shaking up the establishment.
“Where others would turn back, he forges ahead. Up close, I have found a driven, hands-on leader, with the potential to become a truly transformational American figure,” Ryan wrote. “I have little doubt that he will, once again, find a way to defy the odds and get it done.”
Time Magazine noted that Bannon was “the new Administration’s chief narrative officer, nursing an angry, nationalist, America-first flame that set both Republicans and Democrats on their heels; attacked elite institutions in government, business and the media; and thoroughly delighted Trump’s aging, white and disaffected base.”
Trump’s daughter Ivanaka makes the last as well as her husband Jared Kushner for their influence in the White House. Secretary of Defense James Mattis also makes the list.
Allegations That Cost Bill O’Reilly His Job
Allegations That Cost Bill O'Reilly His Job
It was no surprise to most Fox News Channel viewers. The talk had been circulating for weeks. Many of O’Reilly’s loyal fans, who number in the millions, waited and watched — hoping either it wasn’t true or it would blow over. Even before Fox News had made any formal announcement, the other cable news channels were already abuzz with the news — Bill O’Reilly was fired from Fox News, effective immediately.
“After a thorough and careful review of the allegations,” parent company 21st Century Fox said in a statement, “the company and Bill O’Reilly have agreed that Bill O’Reilly will not be returning to the Fox News Channel.”
Whether you liked Bill O’Reilly or not, it was still jaw-dropping to hear that said out loud. Most of us probably never considered what the world would be like without Bill O’Reilly. He’s just been there so long. An entire generation has grown up with him in their living room on a regular basis. He’s kind of like those faces on Mount Rushmore. He’s… just… there. (Or at least was just there)
How did someone with such a large fan base end up with a pink slip? Well, we could probably come up with plenty of ways it could have happened. After all, he’s a fiery, boisterous, often confrontational guy who has a penchant for stirred things up. Maybe he made a guest mad, or said the wrong thing to the wrong person.
It would be great if it were one of those reasons. Unfortunately, it was for the reason that we seem to hear way too much of these days: “alleged sexual harassment.” Apparently, O’Reilly and Fox had paid out some $13 million over the years to settle five lawsuits accusing him of sexual or other forms of harassment. They managed to keep it under wraps until the New York Times, which is no friend of O’Reilly’s, ran a story about the settlements on April 1.
Surprisingly, it wasn’t a mass exodus of fans that was so worrisome for Fox News. After all, most O’Reilly fans are still loyal. No, it was the more than 50 advertisers who started pulling their ads from his prime-time show and placing them either on another Fox show, or worse, on another network. It was the departure of the advertising dollars that set off all the bells and whistles. That, and the fact that Fox News founder Roger Ailes had just recently been forced out last year for the same reason. Fox was beginning to look like the network had little or no respect for women.
At the same time that Fox was desperately trying to hold on to as much advertising dollars as possible, there had been a more recent complaint from a woman who said that in 2013 O’Reilly had agreed to make her a Fox News contributor, but changed his mind when she refused to go up to his hotel room. Fox enlisted a law firm to investigate this incident.
O’Reilly has denied the allegations, insisting that it’s a left-wing conspiracy designed to get him off the air. His lawyer issued a blistering statement Tuesday, accusing O’Reilly’s liberal opponents of a “smear campaign.”
O’Reilly left to go on vacation last week. He insists it was scheduled. In fact, there’s a picture posted online of him hanging out with Pope Francis at the Vatican in Italy. When he returns, at the age of 67, it’s likely that the pink slip will be molded for the public eye to appear as an early retirement slip.
The moral of this story? Rupert Murdoch, CEO of 21st Century Fox, and his two sons, Lachlan and James, have learned a hard lesson about valuing women in the workplace. If the allegations against O’Reilly are true, and the Murdochs were complicit in keeping this secret (as long as he was still making them a profit of more than $400 million a year), well, that would be wrong too.
As for Bill O’Reilly, we will probably never know for sure if he is innocent or guilty. But we all know where’s there’s smoke, there’s usually at least a spark, if not on a full on wildfire. Most will probably judge him guilty, but that still doesn’t take away from the good he did in his tenure at FOX.
The Libertarian Case for Donald Trump’s ‘Buy American’ Order
Donald Trump went to the Wisconsin home of American manufacturer Snap-On Tools to sign a “Buy American, Hire American” executive order aimed at cracking down on the abuse of skilled worker visas and reviving laws aimed at getting government agencies to buy more products made in America.
This was immediately greeted by howls of outrage. Liberals and so-called conservatives who imagine themselves the forever-vigilant guardians of free-trade orthodoxy flew into various manias. There were those, like Jake Tapper of CNN or Phillip Bump of the Washington Post, who accused Trump of hypocrisy since some of his own products were not made in America and some of his companies had hired foreign workers. Still others hollered that Trump’s order wasn’t economic nationalism so much as “backdoor handouts to favored corporate interests.” And, of course, there were plenty who decried the executive order as “protectionism,” as close as one can come to a mortal sin for many economists.
Trump: New trade orders set stage for manufacturing revival
Those paragons of hurtling outrage who flung charges of hypocrisy at Trump are probably best ignored. Nothing in Trump’s executive order would prohibit American businesses from employing foreign workers or companies to manufacture goods sold in America. Rather, it instructs the agencies of the U.S. government to take seriously the legal requirements that they prefer goods produced in the United States when they procure goods above a certain value. This has been the law of the United States since it was signed by Herbert Hoover in 1933–but it has been badly undermined by years of the administrative state diktats and trade agreements granting waivers and exceptions.
Those thundering that the order amounts to protectionism or a form of crony capitalism deserve a more serious response. It is true that many of the historical episodes of American protectionism that flew under the Buy American banner were often constructed by domestic corporate interests seeking to protect their market share from foreign competition. All too often, these domestic manufacturers were themselves some of the worst exploiters of American workers, paying starvation wages, violently resisting attempts by workers to organize, and running manufacturing plants rife with dangerous conditions. Many of the free-traders of the past were trust-busting progressives who sought to introduce competition to break the monopoly power of America’s corporate titans. A good review of this sordid history can be found in Buy American: The Untold Story of Economic Nationalism by University of California historian Dana Frank.
The notion that Trump’s new executive order is a continuation of this story may seem initially plausible. But that plausibility evaporates when exposed to even passing glimmer of thought. The corporate titans of contemporary America are not advocates of protectionism; they are the biggest advocates of globalization. Their political donations, endorsements, and propaganda are not marshaled in support of tariffs, trade barriers, and a self-sufficient economy. Throw a brick at a gathering of Fortune 500 chief executives, and you’ll be sure to hit a self-styled free-trader.
The crony, corporatist protectionism of days of yore has nothing to do with contemporary populist critics. In fact, today’s critics of trade orthodoxy are so far removed from those of the past that perhaps we shouldn’t call them “protectionists” at all. Let’s call them what they are, economic nationalists.
But as wrong as Trump’s critics are when they see old-style protectionism in the new executive order, they somehow manage to commit even deeper errors when looking at the substantive matter of “Buy American.” Far from being a restriction on the free trade of goods by participants in an open and liberalized market, both the Buy American Act and Trump’s order are fully compatible with support for free trade.
Concede for a moment that one of the central tenets of free trade theory is correct: import barriers stand in the efficiency gains that are identical to those we see from technological innovation, better ways of organizing production, and other ways of increasing productivity. All other things being equal, it is better to produce more for less than less for more. What’s more, trade barriers raise costs for consumers and have the tendency to reduce the real income of the country.
It hardly follows from this that all barriers to trade or trade preferences are somehow “bad.” The wealth and welfare of a country consist of more than its income. As Ludwig Von Mises and Murray Rothbard were at pains to explain, wealth is subjective, which means material wealth is not the only thing that counts. It is altogether possible that one may prefer lower living standards in favor of a more humane distribution of wealth or a government procurement policy that recycles dollars taxed and borrowed back into the domestic economy.
Keep in mind that nothing in free trade theory tells us that there are not losers from international trade and that this can have significant undesirable consequences. As far back as Henry Martyn’s 1701 Considerations upon the East India Trade, we’ve known this. Martyn was himself a free-trader of sorts and explained the theory of comparative advantage by imaging a hypothetical example where workers in India could “by fewer hands” produce as much if not more than workers in England;
If nine cannot produce above three bushels of when in England, if by equal labor they might procure nine bushels from another country, to employ these in agriculture at home, is to employ nine to do no more work than might as well de done by nine.
In other words, there’s a theoretical opportunity cost to preferring English wheat to Indian wheat. But that’s only true if there are actual opportunities for the displaced workers at home. Martyn goes on:
If the same work is done by one, which was done before by three, if the other two are forced to sit still, the Kingdom got nothing before by the labor of two, and therefore loses nothing by their sitting still.
A free trade economist might be tempted to say the there was, therefore, no cost at all to giving over wheat production to India. But that ignores the cost of unemployment of the two English workers. If those workers are subsequently employed in less productive jobs--say, as a barista in a coffee shop–not only will the overall productivity of the economy falter, their wages will also. This breeds inequality, resentment, and damages the mental health of the displaced worker.
In the dreamscapes of libertarians, that’s just the way things go. Those workers should find ways to become more productive, move to areas like San Francisco where the magic dirty will somehow make their labor more valuable. And if we lived in that dream–some would call it a nightmare–perhaps that would be the end of the conversation.
But Trump’s executive order has not been issued into the dreamscape. It has been issued to the agencies of the U.S. government, who are charged with spending moneyappropriated by Congress in laws signed by the President of the United States. When we choose to spend money on defense or highway construction or airport improvements, we are acting collectively through the Republican institutions set up by our founders to implement our values. Why should not one of those values be to help U.S. workers and U.S. companies?
To put it in even starker terms, libertarians who favor voluntary association have no grounds to oppose Trump’s “Buy America” order, because it gives expression to the right of Americans to voluntary association and freely-chosen trade. When their government spends, Americans have declared–through laws enacted generations ago and through the election of Donald Trump–that they prefer the government to spend locally. Depriving Americans of this right to control their government’s spending in this way isn’t free trade: it is forced trade.
When Americans expressing their preference for their government to purchase domestically manufactured goods, they no more infringe on free trade than someone who buys organic milk infringes on the rights of non-organic milk farmers. It is inconvenient for companies that would like Americans not to exercise this preference but they have no more right to bar this preference than McDonald’s has to bar my preference for home cooked meals.
“Buy America” is simply another way Americans express their spending policy preferences. It isn’t some autocratic departure from the American way. It is the American way.
G’ day…Ciao…….
Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus articles
that is all articles
This time, hopefully can provide benefits to you all. Okay, see you in another article post.
You are now reading the article the link address https://fairyforreference.blogspot.com/2017/04/httpift_21.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment